Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:37:40.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Limitations of Law as a Tool for Responding to Violence Against Women

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2013

Debra L. DeLaet*
Affiliation:
Drake University

Extract

In their article, Hudson, Bowen, and Nielsen (2011) argue that inequities in family law codify an evolutionary legacy of male control over female reproduction that correlates with increased rates of violence against women. Their general argument is comprised of three fundamental premises. First, the authors provide empirical evidence indicating a relationship between inequities in family law, defined as “state regulation of marriage, parenthood, dissolution of marriage, custody of children, and transmission of goods across generations” (454), and levels of physical violence against women in particular societies. Second, the authors anchor their general argument in a feminist evolutionary analytic approach (FEAA). They contend that evolutionary forces are an ultimate cause of patriarchy and violence against women, even as they acknowledge the importance of more proximate causes of specific forms of violence against women. According to the authors, an FEAA approach can help explain “persistent patterns of patriarchy throughout human history” (464) and “…tells us that there is a strong evolutionary component to violence, and that its origin is male-female conflict over reproduction, and that these influences will be mirrored in human systems of family law” (468). Finally, the authors draw upon the two previous premises to build the third and most critical premise of their argument. Because the authors believe that evidence showing a correlation between inequities in family law and levels of physical violence are ultimately rooted in evolutionary dynamics, they conclude that “[s]ocieties that persist in safeguarding inequitable family law are societies built upon evolutionary male reproductive strategies of structural control and higher levels of coercion of women by men” (470).

Type
Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Hernlund, Yvla, and Shell-Duncan, Bettina. 2007. “Contingency, Context, and Change: Negotiating Female Genital Cutting in The Gambia and Senegal.” Africa Today, June 1, 4357.Google Scholar
Hudson, Valerie M., Bowen, Donna Lee, and Nielson, Perpetua Lynne. 2011. “What Is the Relationship between Inequality in Family Law and Violence against Women? Approaching the Issue in Legal Enclaves.” Politics & Gender 7 (4): 453–92.Google Scholar
Mackie, Gerry. 1996. “Ending Foot Binding and Infibulation: A Convention Account.” American Sociological Review 61 (6): 9991017.Google Scholar
Mgbako, Chi, Saxena, Meghna, Cave, Anna, Farjad, Nasim, and Shin, Helen. 2010. “Penetrating the Silence in Sierra Leone: A Blueprint for the Eradication of Female Genital Mutilation.” Harvard Journal of Human Rights 23 (1): 111–40.Google Scholar
Thomas, Lynn. 2000. “Ngaitana (I Will Circumcise Myself)’: Lessons from Colonial Campaigns to Ban Excision in Meru, Kenya.” In Female “Circumcision” in Africa: Culture, Controversy, and Change, ed. Shell-Duncan, Bettina and Hernlund, Ylva. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 129–50.Google Scholar